What disrespect are you talking about? Posts like these are just so ridiculous. Because they "might" go with a V6 over their I6? Give me a break. Did you complain when you heard they put a V8 into the e92? A newly developed engine on top of that... Whatever the folks at the M GmbH are cooking up - it will be pretty amazing.

They have tradition - what makes a BMW a BMW. The Inline-6 is legendary regardless of what new "better" things everyone's willing to try. I want the sound, I want the connection, I want the feeling of tradition. Any other car has a V6, but a BMW has "THE Inline-6, not AN Inline-6." Why do we buy BMW's? Everyone may have different answers, but I buy for the drive, the sexiness, and the feeling. I want to feel connected and have a shit-face grin on my face when I'm driving it because of the sweet, free-revving Inline-6 engine. I want the car to be light, I want the car to only have the driver in mind, and I want BMW to respect their traditions and heritage. The V8 and V10 were different because they brought it to a whole other level. The Inline-6's can't be replaced though. The E39 M5 had a V8 - anything can have a V8.

__________________

A BMW can be described in one simple, yet true statement, "From the outside you don't understand, from the inside you can't explain." How true is THAT?!

I don't understand the need of going turbo, the compressor is a better choice as you don"t loose throttle response and rev happily, plus just look at all the aftermaket kits for the M3 E46 and E9x ...

Because a supercharger is inherently parasitic. When your new brand image is based on "Efficent Dynamics" it just doesn't provide the desired image. A turbo is efficient in the sense that its only utilizing "waste" energy to fuel engine performance. Whereas the supercharger adds power but doesn't add efficiency. Just my 2 cents.

How about a 4 cyl turbo in the next M3? The 1977 320i David Hobbs drove in IMSA was a 2.0L 4 cyl turbo making 650hp.

Yeah, and wasn't that based on a F1 engine and it had spotty reliability?

A 4 cyl turbo engine in the M3 would be a financial disaster. You can't sell 4 cyl cars in this price range. The clientele for a 60k-80k car want something that is not found in a Honda Civic, base 1 series, or a Evo. Even Lotus had to stop and put in a V8 for their Esprit...their unreliable 4 bangers made customers turn their noses to them...
Furthermore, the M3 has become a GT/sports car, if it loses weight, and gets a I6 turbo, it may be like a old school 964 Turbo (minus a turbo and flat 6 config.). Keeping a 6 cyl count, helps it in the marketing dept and in the image department...the days of E30s is long gone, the M3 has evolved into a Porsche Carrera (and surprising the Mustang is being compared to it) competitor, and on the track, a world beater

They have tradition - what makes a BMW a BMW. The Inline-6 is legendary regardless of what new "better" things everyone's willing to try. I want the sound, I want the connection, I want the feeling of tradition. Any other car has a V6, but a BMW has "THE Inline-6, not AN Inline-6." Why do we buy BMW's? Everyone may have different answers, but I buy for the drive, the sexiness, and the feeling. I want to feel connected and have a shit-face grin on my face when I'm driving it because of the sweet, free-revving Inline-6 engine. I want the car to be light, I want the car to only have the driver in mind, and I want BMW to respect their traditions and heritage. The V8 and V10 were different because they brought it to a whole other level. The Inline-6's can't be replaced though. The E39 M5 had a V8 - anything can have a V8.

I'm certainly no expert but that was my first thought as well. The s65 v8 shares the same architecture as it's s85 v10 brother. As with the s65/s85 you'll need to make a number of changes but in the end you can imagine you'd be left with one hell of a v6. You'd have a lot more space left [vs an i6] for the plumbing of tri-turbos.

Tri-turbos make sense to prevent lag & it should do an amazing job at that. Among others, Merc had a tri-turbo v6 at the '05 Geneva auto show that was very impressive. It never made it to production due to cost. BMW is also rumored to be announcing tri-turbo configs to outfit the x5 & x6 this fall. In closing I think this is very plausible & would address everyones concern regarding throttle response/lag in the next F3x M3.

Keep in mind that a lot of the characteristics that make BMW's i6 amazing can become less important when adding FI.

In the end, if true, I do see the foundation for a high revving, almost lag free monster.

BTW: Feel free to chime in on the characteristics, pros & cons of an s65 derived v6 variant, etc.

They have tradition - what makes a BMW a BMW. The Inline-6 is legendary regardless of what new "better" things everyone's willing to try. I want the sound, I want the connection, I want the feeling of tradition. Any other car has a V6, but a BMW has "THE Inline-6, not AN Inline-6." Why do we buy BMW's? Everyone may have different answers, but I buy for the drive, the sexiness, and the feeling. I want to feel connected and have a shit-face grin on my face when I'm driving it because of the sweet, free-revving Inline-6 engine. I want the car to be light, I want the car to only have the driver in mind, and I want BMW to respect their traditions and heritage. The V8 and V10 were different because they brought it to a whole other level. The Inline-6's can't be replaced though. The E39 M5 had a V8 - anything can have a V8.

My previous car was an '08 550i. I test drove a 2011 550i and felt that it was bloated, had too many electronic contraptions (including an electronic handbrake for heaven's sake!) and despite assurances to the contrary I could feel some turbo lag when accelerating. Overall it felt more like a Mercedes than a BMW. The only thing that kept me from running straight to Porsche was the M3, which I got because it still offered a naturally aspirated V8 and handled like a BMW is supposed to handle. If the future of BMW lies in additional turbo plumbing and intercoolers and if vehicle curb weight continues to rise, this is probably my last Bimmer. One other point: if all of this forced induction is to enable BMW to meet corporate miles per gallon regulations, why doesn't Munich simply re-badge Minis as BMWs, which would improve the overall mpg numbers and perhaps allow it to continue to offer the kind of cars we have come to love.

I'm a huge fan of BMW I6s, but I'm a bigger fan of BMW logic. Everyone keeps thinking about what problems this would cause, etc. I'm confident in BMWs problem solving.

Same doubters for the twin turbo BMWs will be doubters when this cars specs are announced. I'll hold my judgement until I get behind the wheel. No amount of specs, numbers, layouts, etc can ever tell you how the car makes you feel when you drive it. And that's the MOST important factor.

They have tradition - what makes a BMW a BMW. The Inline-6 is legendary regardless of what new "better" things everyone's willing to try. I want the sound, I want the connection, I want the feeling of tradition. Any other car has a V6, but a BMW has "THE Inline-6, not AN Inline-6." Why do we buy BMW's? Everyone may have different answers, but I buy for the drive, the sexiness, and the feeling. I want to feel connected and have a shit-face grin on my face when I'm driving it because of the sweet, free-revving Inline-6 engine. I want the car to be light, I want the car to only have the driver in mind, and I want BMW to respect their traditions and heritage. The V8 and V10 were different because they brought it to a whole other level. The Inline-6's can't be replaced though. The E39 M5 had a V8 - anything can have a V8.

You have a point and I am just as enthusiastic about BMWs inline-6 engine. I purchased my E92 M3 while I still had my E46 zcp for a while. After getting rid of my E46, I regretted it so much. And for years to come, I attributed this regret to the missing I6 in my E92.

But that was not true. Not one bit. I see your argument about the I6, and I raise you this... M3s legacy is NOT the inline 6. Not at all. It is a combination of engine features such as...

-high redline
-flat torque curve
-steep hp curve, peaking near redline
-jumpy, instant and effective response
-ability to be beat up over and over and over and keep ticking

This is the M3s heritage, not the inline 6. This is why an M3 feels how it feels.

I see your argument about V8s in many cars, it's an argument I have also posted on these forums some time ago. But tell me this...

How many 8000+ rpm, max hp at redline, flat torque curve V8s are out there? Not very many my friend. Especially for a car in this price range. This V8 is a very special engine, not your conventional V8. Not even close.

What I missed about my ZCP E46 had more to do with the noticeably lower weight, the shorter steering rack, the tighter suspension, and yes... The rasspy tone. But all along I kept thinking it's the engine. When in reality, it was how the car felt, and how I felt driving the car.

After this realization, I have complete faith the next M3 will have en equally unique engine as the E30, 46, and 92.

If it does end up with a 3 turbo setup, it will most likely be a compound setup with 2 small turbos/3 cylinders for the low end (like the N54) and the exhaust from both of those drives a larger turbo for the high end. The charge air would feed from the filter to the big turbo then split to the smaller turbos to get boosted once more before running through the intercooler. A compound turbo setup would be a perfect fit for an M car, even though it would be a further diversion from heritage. You get the throttle response of tiny turbos, and all the grunt of a big turbo, with none of the down sides of either.

As opposed to the original E30, which had a 2.3l I4...
E36 had first an 3.0, then a 3.2l I6
Then E46 came along with it's 3.3l I6.
THEN, the only V8 in a M3 thus far, the E9* with it's 4.0 V8.
Some needs to read some history in here.

If it does end up with a 3 turbo setup, it will most likely be a compound setup with 2 small turbos/3 cylinders for the low end (like the N54) and the exhaust from both of those drives a larger turbo for the high end. The charge air would feed from the filter to the big turbo then split to the smaller turbos to get boosted once more before running through the intercooler. A compound turbo setup would be a perfect fit for an M car, even though it would be a further diversion from heritage. You get the throttle response of tiny turbos, and all the grunt of a big turbo, with none of the down sides of either.

The rumor of the 3.3ltr.V6TTT quotes ... 1 turbo on each side and one atop of the engine ... seems to be an nice small package!

I think weight distribution, better balance, compact packaging are the most logical reasons for an change from an I6 to an V6 ... and more logical if the M-GmbH will make use of the carbon-compound-parts developed for the i-Range cars ... if they would make the cars overall lighter in bigger numbers the quoted 3 Points are more and more important ... and at one point it make simply no more sence to use the "long(er)" I6 because it could bring the handling of the car on an worse direction.

This could be the logical background of an decission to change the engine layout!

How about a 4 cyl turbo in the next M3? The 1977 320i David Hobbs drove in IMSA was a 2.0L 4 cyl turbo making 650hp.

Sounds like you are a good candidate for a F22 1M. Rumor has it that it will be powered by an I4 turbo - probably "S20B20" or something like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3

The most logical posts in this thread.

Here's why the V6 doesn't make sense to me. To make the V6, you not only have to invest in a unique block including both design and manufacturing concerns. You also have to work out the balance issues of a 90 degree V6. In short, it costs a lot of money to develop a new engine. We know M is spending lots of the R&D budget on weight management right now on so I question the notion that they can meet an M3 cost requirements with all this new kit.

Instead, why wouldn't they just destroke the S63 to 3.3L or 3.5L? It would cost much, much less, it would mean almost all parts can be shared with the 4.4L version, and it would mean more money to spend on other important parts of the car (lighter weight suspension and chassis). Keep in mind, all past BMW V8 families - the M60, M62 and N62 (which includes the S62) - came in multiple displacements so there is some precendent for this. Now, you may say - well why didn't they just destroke the S85 for the M3 then too? Well, that's a fair point, but as we know a V10 is a tight, tight fit for the E9x chassis. On the other hand, a V8 will fit easily, and since the F3x chassis will be no smaller, A V8 will fit easily there too. Also, they already had the 90 degree block for the V10, so a V8 is a no brainer since you want that to be 90 degrees anyway. Granted, the V8 will weigh a bit more than the V6 would. And that's bad when they are trying to cut weight. But, the money you spend on the V6 could easily mean cutting back in the development in lighter parts elsewhere. You can cut money out of the engine in other ways (see GM's new CTS 3.6L for MY2012).

Now, am I saying I think they will do this? No, not necessarily. I just think that if they were looking at a motor with a V layout for the M3 with around ~3L displacement that this scenario makes way more sense. However, I still believe that the M3 will have an I6 instead. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were a small displacement V8.

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

Here's why the V6 doesn't make sense to me. To make the V6, you not only have to invest in a unique block including both design and manufacturing concerns. You also have to work out the balance issues of a 90 degree V6. In short, it costs a lot of money to develop a new engine. We know M is spending lots of the R&D budget on weight management right now on so I question the notion that they can meet an M3 cost requirements with all this new kit.

Thats totally right ... there is no ... no ... no ... chance that the M-GmbH would develop an new White-Paper V6 for the new F3x M3 ... people must read threads in the right way. The rumor is not about an new V6 for this car ... the rumor is about taking the S63TT from the ongoing M5 with 2 cylinder less ... so you get an potent 3.3ltr.V6TT and then put an third Turbo ontop/ in the V. This engine could also share many parts with the V8 S63!

You guys need to appreciate and accept the realities of building the complex electro-mechanical machines that are modern automobiles. You don't go into bubba's shop, grab a sawzall, lob off two cylinders from the front or back of the engine and call it done. The whole thing needs to be reengineered from the ground up. Just look at the differences between the S65 and S85 for some examples. And again, that completely ignores the balance issues. Or look at how much companies like RS motorsports spend on the Hayabusa V8s. It's just two I4s, so it's easy right? Wrong. Those things took years to develop and perfect.

It's simply not realistic to think that a V6 based on the N63 is elementary to design or even likely to materialize. Is it possible? Sure, anything is. But spending that heap of cash on an M3 motor when they already have an I6 seems like a undertaking of dubious tangible value. I am skeptical at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

Thats totally right ... there is no ... no ... no ... chance that the M-GmbH would develop an new White-Paper V6 for the new F3x M3 ... people must read threads in the right way. The rumor is not about an new V6 for this car ... the rumor is about taking the S63TT from the ongoing M5 with 2 cylinder less ... so you get an potent 3.3ltr.V6TT and then put an third Turbo ontop/ in the V. This engine could also share many parts with the V8 S63!

Uli_HH

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.